Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Joschka Fischer was German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005, a term marked by Germany's strong support for NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999, followed by its opposition to the war in Iraq. Fischer entered electoral politics after participating in the anti-establishment protests of the 1960s and 1970s, and played a key role in founding Germany's Green Party, which he led for almost two decades.

Hmm. In interesting ways, reminiscent of the religious situation in Europe after Luther made his 'Reform or we go!' proclamation. That took a while to sort out, too. In fact, in Northern Ireland, it's far from certain it has done so. While Scotland may go for 'Scexit', I can't see the 'Ulster Loyalsts' /Unionists knockiing on the Catholic Regime next door, for alms. I could see yet another iteration of instability there, tho.

For a variety of reasons, the best outcome would be to let time go by, run things as they are, and quietly never to invoke Article 50.This would be a bit nerve-wracking for the 'Remaining 27', but might be the neatest solution to an insane situation. Tiptoe away from an unexploded bomb.

Joschka Fischer asks 'Just what the EU should deliver, and how, in the absence of further integration remains unexplained.'
Some would suggest the most effective role for the EU would be to run the best single market and further develop trading opportunities with the rest of the world.
Member countries would then be free to pursue their own priorities in non market related areas.

Some people think nationalism is embraced only by globalization's losers--people whose income far exceeds their knowledge/skills and, hence, whose large economic rents are wiped out by global competition.

But I suspect that nationalism has been increasing for nearly three decades, and accelerating since 2008, because of escalating economic conflict among sovereign states. The fundamental strategy in that conflict is national thrift (either public or private). And the aggregate result is, right now, slowing world economic growth, and a couple of decades later, world war.

I understand that 1% of Europeans feel 'hurt' by the decision of 52% of UK voters to 'Leave' the European Union.

But Britons didn't leave on a whim, or by accident, this referendum wasn't suddenly put upon them with 24 hours notice, and until the horrific shooting of Jo Cox by a deranged man the 'Leave' referendum result might have been as high as 70%.

It's not only a UK phenomenon.

When European 'elites' castigate 52% of Britons for making 'the wrong decision' they're also castigating 52% (or more) of their own 28-member union -- because the underlying sentiment in the EU right now is that EU membership isn't working for them.

To put a fine point on it; Were a similar referendum held next week in the EU, more than 52% of EU voters in every nation would vote to leave the EU governance architecture.

So, don't be complaining too loudly about how 52% of Britons decided to 'Leave' the EU.

If you do, you'll insult your own base, and in turn they will begin demanding their own referendums.

And that will be the end of the EU. (Very unfortunately)

The European 1% and their supporters (the unelected Nomenklatura in Brussels) should channel their angst towards fixing the underlying issues that are preventing 52% (or more) of EU citizens from fully supporting the EU governance architecture.

And NOT channel their angst towards the Brexiters, for the reasons I've stated above.
_____
Let's look at the 3 main reasons for low support for the EU in Britain and throughout the European Union.

1. Economic hardship caused by millions of economic migrants taking jobs from millions of locals -- throughout the EU, not only Britain.

2. Unelected apparatchiks and their unelected bosses the Nomenklatura in Brussels deciding everything from the cost of bread to who and how many economic immigrants and refugees are allowed into each country (apparently, unlimited!) and with penalties for non-compliance.

3. Fairly, or unfairly, the EU gets some of the blame (not all of it) for globalization, which has been an incredible boon for our planet -- both developed and undeveloped nations have prospered.

Yet, citizens can't eat GDP. They can't pay their mortgage with GDP, and they can't buy a car with GDP.

GDP is useless to citizens.

But it is wonderfully brilliant for Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, bankers, the 1%, assorted aristocracy, and even members of the intelligentsia to brag about.

Fairly or Unfairly:

I said 'fairly' because the EU is one of the prime pushers of the globalization drug, but not the only one pushing that mostly-good construct.

Summary:

I've written many times about the need for the EU to reform, to become more democratic, to lighten the load on nations forced to take more than 6% of their population as economic immigrants and refugees, and to install levels of assistance to those who've been DISadvantaged by globalization.

What might assist those people disadvantaged by globalization, who represent 2/5ths of the population of most every EU nation?

a) No income tax for those who earn less than 25,000. euros per year, including those on unemployment insurance or social welfare schemes.

b) A mandatory programme that new refugees and economic immigrants must complete before they can receive permission to work in any EU country that is not their home country. (Relevant laws, EU and national ethos, cultural sensitivities education, aptitude testing to determine the best kind of job for them, employment assistance, finding accommodation, etc.)

c) A full revamp of the EU governance architecture. However, that's likely to take 300 years at present rates of progress, therefore, some immediate actions *must* be taken.

> Whenever any country leaves the EU, it must be part of the EU administration to ask for the resignation of the then-President of the EU.

In the case of David Cameron he has resigned because he said that he's not the one to take on the task of negotiating a Brexit that he doesn't believe in -- very principled of him, and admirable.

But in the case of EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Britain voted to 'Leave' on his watch.

If he isn't asked to resign, then forget about the EU altogether, for if it can't even do that, it's a nebulous and non-democratic caricature of governance, and there won't be an EU for very much longer. Mark my words.

Whatever day that David Cameron calls his last day on the job as British PM, should likewise be the last day on the job as European Commission President for Jean-Claude Juncker.

And that should become the precedent for any future EC Presidents (and national Prime Ministers, etc) otherwise, there is no sense of loss, no sense of needing change -- only business as usual until the EU loses all 28 nations.

The EC President is not the Pharaoh, nor is he/she Ra, the Sun god.

When they fail, there must be a recognition of moral culpability and taking of responsibility with due humility for the failure.

This isn't a personal attack against Jean-Claude Juncker, I'm sure he's an excellent man. But the EU lost Britain on his watch.

In the absence of real democracy, at least a smattering of 'show democracy' should occur, meaning, one head should roll each time a country leaves the EU governance architecture in order to prevent the eventual loss of 28 member nations.

According to Joschka Fischer, a "reawakening" of Europe" requires an impetus that "regains its positive visionary power." He says Brexit has taught us a lesson that has to be learnt, and we can't afford to let "business as usual /to/ prevail." Apart from "a new European narrative," we need to have an "renewed EU" to address "the underlying causes" for rejecting the bloc, "which run much deeper than current conflicts." He fears that without Britain, the north-south divide laid bare by the Greek bailout, the east-west divide caused by the refugee crisis, and the "differences over strategy and tactics between the key members of the currency union, especially Germany and France" might lead to the bloc's disintegration.
First of all Fischer suggests how important it is to convince "millions of Europe’s citizens where the real power within the EU lies: not in Brussels and Strasbourg, but in the hands of national governments." It's true that in recent years the EU institutions have been blamed "for all kinds of problems: globalization, immigration, welfare cuts and Thatcherism, youth unemployment, lack of democracy, and much more."
Fischer maintains that national governments have prevented the EU from dealing with various issues, even though they can't tackle them "effectively on their own," making "these problems them worse." Indeed, it is always easy to shift the blame on others. In many cases national governments answer to their constituents, who resent the loss of sovereignty and fear the accumulation of all powers - legislative, executive, and judiciary - in Brussels. Besides they often reject the policies proposed by the European Commission.
Brexit has showed that ordinary citizens are ignorant of politics in general and the EU polity - the political entity of the bloc - in particular. In the wake of the referendum Google reported a spike in searches for “What happens if we leave the E.U.?” And the question “What is the E.U.?” was the second most popular question in Britain. The European Commission is the executive body of the bloc, whose officials are often seen as "unelected" bureaucrats, who do what they want. In fact the commissioners are proposed by national governments and selected by the president of the Commission. New legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU voters. So it's misleading to say unelected bureaucrats make decisions in the EU. The 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments.
As many citizens aren't properly informed of what their politicians at home and "Eurocrats" in Brussels do, they rely on tabloids and other media for information, which often aim to manipulate and spread lies. With all its flaws and imperfections, the EU has maintained peace and stability for over six decades. But it doesn't sell to shed a good light on the bloc, especially by reactionary media. But nativism, nationalism, hatred against the political establishment and "deep-seated distrust" of the financial "elites" appeal to the wider public. The working-class blames globalisation for their dwindling income and sinking standards of living, while begrudging the rise of a middle class in China and India.
Fischer sees the current paralysis within the EU as "contradictory" - the governments "of almost all member states are ... rejecting further integration while insisting that the EU must “deliver” and be at the beck and call of member states. "Just what the EU should deliver, and how, in the absence of further integration remains unexplained." Fischer says "there still may be time to reverse current trends in the West. We do not need a victory by Trump, or by National Front leader Marine Le Pen in next year’s French presidential election, to know where the nationalism underlying the Brexit vote leads."

Re: "movement of people is sacrosanct". I heard that quote too, but I think it is that statement which is exaggerated.

The free movement of people is a tremendous convenience that does produce a net gain, but without a functioning way to share that net gain in the real world, the political situation will just get worse, and I want to think there is some recognition of that.

And "sacrosanct" does not mean "the most important".
If the planners of the euro thought they had to choose between movement of people and movement of finance and commerce, there wouldn't be any hesitation at all. They are just saying they haven't given up on the full vision of the EU yet -- I don't think anyone expected that anyway.

I think we can pretty easily put the "four freedoms" (using definition from Financial Times) in order of priority:
1. free movement of capital
2. free movement of goods
3. free movement of services
4. free movement of people

With 3 other principles: democracy, human rights, and "financial responsibility", which of course is a very subjective concept, but of central importance.

Incidentally, if we accept that Brexit was primarily motivated by #4, then it means the UK need not fear too much for "punishment" from the EU, other than maybe being hassled when getting visas to travel.

My concern would be that they somehow come to the conclusion that they can avoid compromising on movement of people by instead "compromising" on democracy.

It has to get worse before it gets better, and it getting worse is guaranteed

There is only growth or decline, no such animal as stability. The EU is in decline at the moment and will remain in decline until there is growth. The EU now has Slovakia - population 1% of the EU - as president, presidency rotates. Slovakia wants more say for the Eastern and Central EU. For some issues all EU members have to agree, so for example for the 2year UK exit EU talks to extend beyond 2years all members have to agree. So Slovakia, population 1% could block talks extending, not that I am saying they will, but that is the problem in making any significant chnage on progress, small parties can block the majority. Even if the majority become distressed a single small party can block an issue. This is not democracy. As democracy still exists at a national level within member states by definiton policy movement is more active within member states so conflict has to grow between members states and the Union unless remarkable economic growth occurs which is highly unlikely. The original structure of the EU worked better than now, as Jose has pointed out. That is because there was more commonality between the handful of members therefore less conflict

Thanks for the detailed response. This series of comments is actually helping me think more about the order and direction of the connections between the "elements" of euro integration.

I agree completely with you that you can't sustain free movement in the face of high unemployment in the poorer countries, which results from common currency and no-fiscal-transfers.

And the way it is not sustainable is that you get the kind of politics we have now, which as Joschka Fischer seems to be saying, is ironically what the EU is meant to avoid. So stripping away sovereignty actually makes nationalism worse!

Given the higher aims of the EU were to form lasting human bonds across national lines to avoid future conflict, they system that was actually built is a pretty bad failure.

However, suppose one did away with the common currency, and also did away with the pieces of political union that are in place so far. But keep a treaty to allow movement of people, which is really the only element, in the long run, that you need to achieve the primary goal of integration on a human level. Lastly add, by treaty, fiscal transfers to assist the poorer countries...

I don't expect you to go for this, just throwing it out there as a possible alternative to the euro system as-built. It would've been an impossible proposition 5-10 years ago, but I think the alternatives are looking worse.

Writing from the US, I'm interested on what this kind of breakdown can help understand the future of globalization and how that situation could potentially be un-f****ed.

PS. For freedom of movement you have to have political union, for political union you have to have a common currency, for a common currency you have to have a transfer union, a perpetual transfer of funds from wealthier areas in the union to poorer ones. It happens in all common currency areas, if you look up public spending for regional GDP it is there. if just one player in the common currency area doesnt want to participate in a transfer union then imbalances build up and show as depopulation (GR, Italy etc) or debt (GR obvious case). It is not acceptable to German and other relatively wealthy voters that perpetual transfers outwards occur, and Greece studiously avoids stating that it needs perpetual transfers, in both cases this is because voters would object strongly. The conclusion can only be that political failure will cause common currency failure and common currency failure will cause political failure, it is only a matter of time, My hope is that the EU reforms. At present the EU is like the Wizard of OZ insisting everybody wears green glasses so the city looks Emerald when really it is grey. They have at the most 10 years before euro imbalances build up to a breaking point again (INO). Regards

Just to make it clear, although I have stated it repeatedly. I voted Remain. As it happens I am not much bothered about migration but I can understand why some are. The root of the UK problem lies in the N Sea Oil development in the 1970s. That eroded much of the traditional UK manufacturing base. The McCrone report of 1974 advised the then UK guvnt that manufacturing was not viable with Sterling strengthening due to it becoming an Oil currency. That decline was obscured by the Thatcher guvnt using Oil revenues to sweeten voters with tax breaks. That couldnt last forever and the move was made to develop the City as a financial sector. That was a sound strategy and successful, if it left an uneasy dependency on the City. In parrallel the decline of manufacturing continued with little hope for the disenfranchised. You then are left with 2 countries in one and 2 mindsets. The New Labour guvnt of the late 1990s and early 2000s then used debt to bubble the economy and thought they could use debt to buy through the inevitable economic cycle only to supersize the inevitable outcome. During this whole process corporations moved wholesale manufacturing to Eastern EU, eg Terrys of York, no longer of York, Cadbury Chocolate, Houses of Parliament sauce, Branston Pickle, etc etc. The leave vote is a vote against those forces that have economically emasculated an older group of voters. In view of the damage this outcome will have on the EU they, the EU, were collectively ill advised not to give some latitude to the issue of freedom of movement to the UK which is very much in the face of many voters. Saying migration could be capped for a stablisation period of a couple of years then reopened would have depressurised the situation. Switzerland has the same probkem and has now withdrawn its application to join the EU. You will be left with only countries who want handouts and for their workers to flood the EU labour market wanting to join the EU. Joschka is part of the problem mindset in the EU. He is motivated and passionate which just makes him more not less of a problem. In a conflict all sides think they will win and they are right in thier arguments but it just cannot happen, there are winners and losers. Free movement will damage the political stability of the EU, the Euro will damage the financial stability of the EU IMO. Both of those are central to the EU mindset at the moment. The inability of the EU to reformulate policy to a changing environment is its achilles heel.Regards

The author wants a better European narrative - after Brexit pressed buttons in Britain beyond trigger benchmarks.
The Europe that flourished - 1945 / 2015 is over - in Brussels, simultaneously and endlessly flooded Britain.
The author is right - the Beancounters had no chance - in understanding why the flood overwhelmed Remain.
The author rightly sees tectonic shifts - from the nationalism underlying the Brexit vote.

NATO wasn't on the ballot in this REFERENDUM.
Europe cannot have its cake and eat it.
Expansion of Europe - controlled in Brussels - leading to uncontrolled migration into Britain.
Without being able to convert Europe into a Magnet for Growth - yet seeking expansion.
The agenda in Brussels was Political Megalomania - without the Economics.
SIZE being enhanced + Markets being enhanced - benefits in Brussels, burdening Britain with the unwanted migration corollary.
The author rightly sees tectonic shifts - from the nationalism underlying the Brexit vote.

Brexit has unleashed responsibility and accountability back to Brussels.
Europe can sustain its successes without The Anglosphere.
Seventy Years - 1945/2015 - has provided Europe with its longest sanctuary.
The choice to pursue and prolong that interlude - after Brexit - is entirely up to Brussels now.
Britain can go back to The Anglosphere of 1600/1945 - that it incubated and nurtured.
Before it got entangled with Europe.

Thank you Joschka for a very balanced and reasoned article
( which means ,of course, I agree wholeheartedly with every thing you said. )
I see politicians who use malignent nationalism as a political tool as air brushed white collar war criminals.
Yes the European union may have some what lost its way . At times they may have lost sight of why the Union was created. Many younger Europeans now see them selves as just that "Europeans "first and foremost. The future is here, the fundamental goal of the EU is on the cusp of being realised
There is too much to lose Everything else is just stuff that can be sorted out.
This current flood of opinion and concern must morph into widespread reasoned debate with rational,workable solutions There is too much to lose to do anything else

Fischer titles his article in the German language with ' Brexit - first part of a nightmare '. He totally ignores, that the German government of which he was a prominent part, as Vicechancellor and Foreign Minister, was the first chapter a European nightmare. The bombing of Serbia for Kosovo (until this day a European creation of an indepenent country for the principal benefit of former terrorists and the Albanian mafia), then there was the violation of the Euro-stability pact which was the beginning of the end of the integrity of the Euro, and last but not least the EU-expansion without any prior EU-reform with an effectiv, stable and democraticlly legitimate constitutional order. Ever since the EU has been hopelessly overextended, quite possibly beyond repair.

As usual, BS from the leader of Putzgruppe (literally "cleaning squad", with the first syllable being an acronym for Proletarische Union für Terror und Zerstörung, "Proletarian Union for Terror and Destruction") (from Wikipedia). When he was young, he clubbed policemen for fun. Now he clubs all of the people of Europe with Open Borders, mass migration, and "we can do this".

When people like Fischer start living in the immigrant slums that have so vigorously promoted, when their daughters are assaulted by "refugees" they love so much, ordinary people will have some reason to start listening to the like of Fischer. Of course, at that point the like of Fischer will be telling Germany and Europe how good barbed wire is at keeping out illegals.

Enhanced integration of ‘ever closer union’ will never be and never was possible. The fundamental problem with the EU is that the founders never did decide on the clear rules for the authority of the EU as a whole in relation to the authority of the constituent member nation-states comprising its’ parts, with each claiming authority, but with none the consensus about the relationship of one to the other.
Over the weekend the foreign ministers from the EU’s six founding member states declared that they will “recognize different levels of ambition amongst Member States when it comes to the project of European integration” and further they will “focus our common efforts on those challenges which can only be addressed by common European answers, while leaving other tasks to national or regional levels.”
Essentially this is the admission that the individual member sovereign states should have the choices of the terms of membership. Or, in the simple terms the admission of the primacy of national sovereignty. Le nationalisme, bon, mal ou, comme ci comme ça; c'est la réalité, c'est l'histoire. So, there will more than likely evolve the à la carte EU that Germany will not resist as long as the free trade zone is maintained as for Germany the free trade zone is sacrosanct, an existential economic imperative, everything else is negotiable.

@Steve
The excellent question. They could be platitudes; I would not consider them policy statements but rather statements of objectives for future policies. However, they did not provide any the clue as to how they expect to achieve such. If there is not the follow through beyond the cosmetics then they will prove to be the platitudes.
Free movement is a cornerstone fundamental principle, my opinion it is not just ‘an’ issue but rather ‘the’ issue -primary reason the Brits that did, voted out. I suspect though it may no longer be sacrosanct for if adherence threatens the existent free trade zone, again my opinion, the Germans will toss it under the bus. Without the free trade zone the German export based business model becomes unsustainable.

@Leonard
A very pertinent comment. The question then becomes are the statements made platitudes or real policy, and how does that sit alongside the demand free movement is sacrosanct, as free movement is an issue, and will remain an issue

The EU really needs to take steps to make itself more an indissoluble whole, perhaps by requiring that any national referendum or vote to leave be confirmed by an EU-wide referendum or vote. That would make clear that states, once in the EU, are subordinate to the will of the people of the EU as a whole.

@Paul Daley
While Euro officials would no doubt love that, I think that would be a hard sell any country, including Germany, where the constitutional court periodically asserts national sovereignty when there is talk of fiscal consolidation...

Nevermind Joschka with the EU ever expanding membership ambitions you will soon have Turkey as a member with its population a bit larger than the UKs. However like all newbies it will probably ask for handouts whereas the UK is reported as making up 15% of the EUs budget. Where next eastwards after Turkey will become the EU, let me know

'.. immediate steps toward stabilization and enhanced integration...'

Same old song eh, then '...little hope of that..' but no deep discussion of why just the claim it is counter 'rational'. Then '..many indications that business as usual will prevail.' So there you go Joschka, this totally inflexible club apparently takes no warning, makes no adjustment and tries to overrule growing democratic dissent. Then complains about the lack of democracy elsewhere. Sad state of affairs. The only way the current EU ambition can be acheived is by beating down democracy and sooner or later voters will reach for the ballot box

Not a word of the most critial issue facing the EU which is its demographic aging problem and the flight of youth from the South and East leaving future stability issues for tax revenues in the country left behind. Still when you can't deal with immediate problems or even yesterdays problems why worry about a couple of decades time

'But even in Europe, no one can have their cake and eat it.' What you do not understand Joschka is the reality is many EU members are having their cake and eating somebodyelses hence the problem. Putting aside the issue of the euro imbalance that is exactly the objection of the average German voter to Greece, they feel Greece is eating their cake. To close to home to look at?

With regard to a 'disasterous political reality show' - when is the German Guvnt going to tell the German voters that if they want a common currency area they also have to accept the embedded transfer union involved with perpetual wealth transfers from richer North to poorer South and Newbies

Germanys disasterous migrant policy was to spontaneously invite migrants in without discussion, magnifying flows, magnifying in transit deaths, provoking social instability in Germany, then turn around and say the migrants had to be be shared around the entire EU. Please tell my why a homebrewed German policy should be made a EU policy by fait accompli, in what way does that demostrate respect for other members and engender trust in community management

Well Steve, one thing is for certain; they never sleep and never fall asleep, so this leaves me with your second option "the Zombie State". I am glad however, that we managed to lure in Peter, although from a slightly different angle and Peter this is meant as a compliment.

Great comments. Of course, Fischer's Europe can only sustained by lies and disinformation on migration and the inevitable transfer union. Admitting the truth would bring down Fischer and his allies (including Merkel) overnight. It won't happen. However, the truth (see Cologne, see Rotherham, see Charlie Hebdo) can only be suppressed for so long.

Quote from Philip K. Dick

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.